Perhaps he would go into that matter. If, as he claims I think from that remark, that £18,000,000 was spent on consumer goods of presumably a non-essential character, it is rather a large sum of money.
Continuing in that Report, down near the bottom of column 1896, he says:—
"An increase, of course, in agricultural output is much to be desired, and that is the justification for paying to the farmer a price that will enable him and induce him to increase his output and meet these ever-mounting costs that have been piled upon him by the defunct Coalition."
I want to take the Minister up on that. What are these "ever-increasing costs that have been piled on the farmer by the defunct Coalition"? The chief costs that come to my mind are the increase in agricultural wages, the increase in rates and increases in various items that the farmer has to import, most of these items not being under our control.
Let us take this case of agricultural wages. Over the period from 1938 to to-day, roughly speaking, 50,000 persons, males, who formerly were employed in agriculture, have found employment elsewhere; and over that same period the employment of males in industry has increased by something like 47,000—in other words, there has been a transfer from agriculture to industry of about 50,000 males. Does the Minister not think, perhaps, that if these costs "piled on the agricultural industry by the defunct Coalition" had not included a rise in agricultural wages—and a very considerable rise; there was a lag which had to be made up—possibly there might have been even a bigger transfer of agricultural labour to other work than merely the 50,000 in 12 years?
I do not think one can blame the previous Government for the substantial increase in rates. I am afraid rates seem to be always increasing, no matter what the Government is. I feel that, after making a statement like that, it is incumbent on the Minister to let us know in detail what are these "ever-mounting costs" to which he refers. I admit there are ever-mounting costs, but I am afraid that most of them are inevitable.
If we go on to column 1899, the Minister gives a series of items which he thinks will tend to ameliorate the unfortunate adverse balance of payments, item (5) being:—
"An increase in production for export, particularly in agriculture, is urgently needed to reduce the trade deficit."
I quite agree but I should like to know why it should always be assumed that agriculture alone should be asked to make the main contribution towards redressing an adverse trade balance, more especially if one tries to make out a sort of give-and-take balance sheet and see how that adverse trade balance accumulated and how it grew.
Let us take a simplified view of the picture. In 1950, roughly speaking, our agricultural exports were about three times the value of those of industry. I will be contradicted on that because that is not exactly the figure as given in the Statistical Abstract. I have included in agriculture certain items that are normally credited entirely to industry, such as that fraction of Guinness that can be attributed to barley, and so on, which, I think, is only fair. After all, you cannot make Guinness out of water alone. I think it is true to say that agricultural exports would be about three times the value of what one may call industrial exports.
We see a far different picture in regard to imports. The imports for purely agricultural purposes are relatively small as compared with the imports of all other goods. That is as one might expect it should be, but why is it always expected by the community that agriculture is the only producing mechanism that we have sufficiently efficient to face world competition with the exception of one or two large industrial concerns? Have none of our infant industries which we have brought up at considerable expense and with which we have had a lot of trouble yet reached the growing stage when they can bear their share in trying to counterbalance the burden on this country? How much longer have these infant industries to be assisted? Tariffs, quotas, restrictions and other devices were very necessary while these infant industries were cutting their teeth but surely some of them ought to be able to stand on their own feet, or at any rate soon be able to do so.
I feel that the Minister for Finance was asking rather a lot of agriculture that it should be expected to be the main factor in redressing this adverse trade balance by a rapid expansion. He did not seem to ask anybody to do anything much about it. He complained—I think rightly so—that, in his opinion, a certain amount of imports for the past few years may have been in respect of goods of a luxury nature which were not essential to the wellbeing of the community. Senator Baxter said to-day that going around the country he was rather horrified to find the presence of a lot of noxious weeds. He complained that he saw fields full of buttercups and fields full of daisies. I wish he had gone rather further and mentioned the fact that while the buttercup had some nutritional and flavour value, the one-eye daisy was probably the very best indicator of a very low state of fertility and the complete absence of phosphates. Anybody who has one-eye daisies growing in his fields knows what the answer should be and that is to put in phosphates.
The world to-day is in rather a disturbed state. On the Appropriation Bill last year, I think, the complaint was made by the then Opposition that provision should be made against an emergency by accumulation of large stocks of this, that and the other. It seems to me that that is not the best way of stocking the larder. The best way of stocking the larder of an agricultural country is to raise the fertility of the land. You can then, to a large extent, draw upon that in time of necessity. I want to suggest to our new Minister for Agriculture—he probably knows as well as I do that the land of Ireland is still in a very low state of fertility—that every effort should be made to restore the fertility of that land to what it was some 40 or 50 years ago. When I was a youngster the fertility of the land was very much better. I want to suggest that, given land in which the lime state is correct, you can reasonably well store both phosphates and potash and leave them locked up until such time as they are wanted. Of course, if the lime state is all wrong, you are simply wasting your phosphates. You will never get them back again.
There is a difficulty, however, in the case of nitrogen. You cannot store nitrogen very easily in the land and certainly you cannot store it directly. It is easily lost and the drainage water goes up in the air as ammonia, but you can to some extent lock it up in the grass sward, especially if you have your clovers functioning properly. From time to time back to 1930 there have been proposals that we should set up a nitrogen fixation plant. It first came up at the time of the Shannon scheme and Siemen's had some tentative proposals. Later on in the mid 1930's the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, was contemplating something of that sort and in recent years Deputy Major de Valera has been directing our attention to this matter.
Of course, it is very easy to say that a small country like this cannot afford a nitrogen plant and that we can always buy our nitrogen more cheaply than we can make it. The only trouble is that when you most urgently want it—which is in time of emergency—if you have not got your own plant you cannot get any nitrogen. Therefore, as we have not got a plant we must build up reserves in the soil through the sward and the clovers. There is no other way of doing it very satisfactorily. It is the root nodule on the legume and it may take a little extra nitrogen to do it well.
It may be thought that going into some of these agricultural details is outside the scope even of the Appropriation Bill, but we are always apt to think when goods flow freely into the country: that is grand; we need not bother our heads about making capital provision for the future. I would suggest that as we are an agricultural country very largely dependent on agriculture—as I quoted, the Minister for Finance asks our agriculture to do most of the work in meeting the deficit in the balance of payments—we should think that there are times when our agriculture becomes very vulnerable. We have got a perishable product which cannot easily be stored and cannot be held over. Many difficulties confront the industry in times of a world surplus of agricultural goods. To-day, of course, there is not a world surplus but rather a world shortage and it is just when there is a world shortage that we should be in the best position to build up the capital equipment required to bring our agricultural industry into a state of great security.
Before the change of Government, I understand there was a proposal to augment largely the facilities in this country for agricultural research and the extension of our knowledge of agriculture. I do not think that there is any way in which money could earn a larger dividend than in increased knowledge. We are rather apt to carry out a few scattered experiments, rather half-baked experiments sometimes, and then say that that applies to the whole country. Unfortunately the land of this country is in an astonishing state of diversification. What happens in one place does not apply elsewhere, and we want a much more intimate knowledge of the requirements of this soil type or that soil type before we can say with absolute certainty to the farmer: There is what you have got to do; if you do that you will get such and such results. Our agricultural advisers should be able to say quite definitely: do this, that or the other and a certain result will follow—there are some who say it and the results do not follow. We have not as yet got sufficient accurate knowledge.
I want to see greater certainty brought into one of the most uncertain of occupations. Recently I had the opportunity of seeing some of these high production farms in Northern Ireland. There are a few of them there on which the output is being measured, and by that I mean the output of the whole farm. One is a small farm with 25 acres in grass and about four acres of mixed oats and tare. This was a little dairy farm and judging by the neighbouring land it was a poor farm, but that man with intensive production got an output of 23.4 cwt. starch equivalent per statute acre. That is a very high figure. I think that the average taken over the whole country of agricultural land and leaving out other land is about 5 cwt. That small farm showed what could be done with intensification.
On this side of the Border one often hears small farmers complaining: "If only my farm was bigger I could do better." Could we not possibly try out in one or two selected cases a programme of intensification and see whether, with an adequately fed farm of 25 acres, we could not get an output equivalent to at least a starch equivalent of one ton per acre? That is nothing like the best of these measured farms. There are about five in Northern Ireland and about 30 in England. Some of them are yielding over 33 cwt. starch equivalent per acre, the starch equivalent being a ton of barley. That shows what you can get from grass intensively fed.
I should like our Minister for Agriculture, who is asked by the Minister for Finance to get increased output, to let us try and demonstrate what we know to be technically possible. What we do not know is whether, within our price system, it is economically possible to raise the level of output to anything like the figures I have just mentioned.
That brings us to a question that seems to be exercising the mind of the Minister for Agriculture at the moment. He seems to be inclined to try to find out the cost of production of various commodities. This, of course, is a subject that has been brought up many times and it is a very difficult subject. I should like to suggest to the Minister that in entering a very difficult subject like costings on the farm there are two things which he has got to bear in mind. One is what we all know, that the costs vary very widely from farm to farm. Therefore, while a costings investigation is going on, it is essential to try to find out why the very wide variations take place.
It is very simple just to turn round and say that it is because of differences in soil. That is only the excuse. It may be management or it may be dozens of things. If we can really study and get detailed costings, under all sorts of circumstances of production, of various items of agriculture, we also want the costings of all produce over a farm—in other words, there is always a great danger in itemised costings. It is what the whole thing must add up to on a farm—otherwise there will be all sorts of maintenance items that will be put down as a bulk figure and which do not add up to the total expenditure. Therefore, when our Minister gets on to this question of costings, we must have the whole farm costings as well as the itemised ones. It is only when we have got the whole farm costings that the itemised costings become of any real value.
I should like to say one last word on these costings and that is that to be of any use we have got to have the feeling that they are unbiased costings which were carried out to discover the truth and not for any ulterior purposes. I am going to suggest that some outside independent body be set up to arrive at these costings and that they should seek the advice of bodies in regions where this sort of work has been done, especially in the United States, which is far ahead of us on that matter, possibly in the eastern counties of England where a costings system has been going on over a number of farms, and in various other places where something along these lines has been done. Their experience should be sought and investigations made into the best possible methods. However, I suggest that an independent body of accountants should do the work—and then we can all study the costings with confidence, and tear them to pieces if necessary.
There are a couple of other matters which I wanted to raise on this occasion, one of which is defence. It is rather unfortunate that in this Oireachtas, and especially in the Seanad, we seldom have an opportunity of talking of defence—and possibly when the comprehensive and permanent Defence Forces Bill becomes an Act we shall have even fewer opportunities. Several times when we discussed defence in this House the debate centred on whether we should have an army of 8,000 or 12,000 men, and so forth. In other words, the debate has centred on the question of the number of men we should have in the Army. I do not think that, to-day, that matters a row of pins. What matters to-day is the extent to which we can get modern equipment for our men so that our Defence Force can be trained in the use of modern equipment and so that, should difficulties arise, not only have we sufficient equipment for our 8,000 or 12,000 men, or whatever the number recruited may be, but that we have equipment for the F.C.A. which these 8,000 men are supposed to train.
A modern army depends on its equipment. Without equipment, it is in a very serious position. I know that in the past modern equipment has been a difficulty but I do not think that to-day the number of men is of very great importance unless we can fully equip that number of men with whatever equipment they require together with all the ancillaries which it is necessary for them to have under modern circumstances. It may not be desirable to go into the question of what equipment exists at present—and, quite likely, it is better left unsaid: I do not know— but I do think that every effort should be made to integrate the working of the Army with the F.C.A. In other words, have as many, perhaps on quite a small scale, combined operations between a unit of the Army and the local F.C.A. in two or three counties as possible. Get them operating together so that they understand field operations on a reasonable scale.
The fortnight's or three weeks' training in camp every year is helpful, but to my mind nothing is as good as having operations, especially when people know the area in which they are operating so that they can make use of every natural obstacle and make use of the terrain. Looking back on the past, I think we have had too few field operations such as I have suggested. I know they are troublesome but I do not think there is any better way of keeping enthusiasm alive in our volunteer force.
I regret that in the first few weeks following on the change of Government a new and untried Minister for Agriculture, who had barely had time to sit at his desk, thought fit to remove from the control of the Minister for Agriculture the import of wheat and feeding stuffs. I am not blaming the Minister for Agriculture at all. Possibly his first reaction was: "Here I have a terrific job and it is a relief to me to have that section gone from under my control." But I think that was a mistake. The Minister for Agriculture must plan to provide our people and our live stock with food. Part of his function entails the procuring of food within the country or importing it from abroad, both intergrated under his control. I think it is wrong to revert to a method under which these two are separated as if they were wholly unconnected. I would prefer if the Minister for Agriculture had been given time to find his feet and if, after that, he thought it wise to separate these having fully considered all aspects, well and good. Then we could argue the matter. But I do think it is regrettable that he should have yielded up these controls. I think it is a retrograde step.
Obviously, any increase in agricultural output must be a slow process. As we all know from our textbooks agriculture is an industry which suffers from a diminishing return. I do not say that we have reached that stage, but I do think that there are only a few things in which we can expand quickly. Indeed, they are very few. If we have to supply all the necessary ingredients for expansion out of our own resources, progress will be slow. One can expand the pig population fairly rapidly if someone else grows the grain. That is quite obvious. Expansion in the cow population will be very slow.
Perhaps the Minister, when he is replying, would indicate in what directions he would like to see an expansion in the volume of agricultural output. Perhaps he would indicate what inducements he thinks it would be necessary to offer in order to get that expansion. Wheat is a very controversial subject. We have land that gives a good wheat yield and we have land that gives a poor yield. I think it is quite possible to get an increased yield from poor land by means of treatment, but treatment costs money and it is an expensive process. If the Minister for Agriculture wants to extend the area under wheat to those lands that do not naturally yield a good return, I think he will have to resort to a system of acreage payment —that is a special payment on what I shall describe as marginal wheat lands —in order to provide farmers with an inducement to grow wheat on such lands and up to such a level as will yield results. Obviously, where one can get 20 cwt. to the statute acre the present price is reasonably good; but where one gets only 6, 7 or 8 cwt. to the acre the return is under half while the costs are exactly the same. If the Minister wants to get more land under wheat—and that brings him to the lighter lands more suitable for the growing of barley and oats—in order to save importation and conserve dollars he will have to resort to some system of acreage payment. In that way he may quite possibly get the extra wheat necessary.
If the Minister will indicate in what direction he thinks expansion is likely to prove profitable both to the producer and to the nation as a whole, it might be very helpful. He does not seem to have as hopeful a view in relation to our live stock as some of us have. He seems to fear that other countries may think that cheap meat can and must be got. I do not agree that that is so. I think we should be able to expand the region into which our live stock goes. After all, we have sent consignments of bacon to the United States of America. I do not know whether that export is likely to develop to any considerable extent, but while there is a world shortage of live stock and live-stock products we have an unlimited opportunity of searching for new markets. Now is the time to find out whether there is a possibility of further development, so that in the future we may not find ourselves, as we have been in the past, dependent on one market.
Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
